Si 


1 H 


>  rt-t* 


CLE 


RfiSfy 


.V 

\ 


i  L 


Anti- imperial  ism 

/ 

=is - = 

Old  Copperhead  ism. 


How  the  Northern  Traitors  of  1864  Wailed  Over  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  Reviled  Lincoln 
and  Fumed  Against  Militarism. 


HISTORY  REPEATS  ITSELF. 


Democrat  and  Republican,  friend  and  foe,  agree  that  the  central  thought  of 
Mr.  Bryan’s  speech  at  Indianapolis  is  in  applying  to  the  issues  of  the  day,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  “governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.”  Interpreting  this  as  if  it  requires  in 
all  cases,  and  under  all  circumstances,  an  absolute  rule  by  the  majority,  told  off 
by  the  head  in  each  community,  Mr.  Bryan  necessarily  contemplates  a  partial 
paralysis  of  the  Constitution  and  the  courts. 

Magnified,  falsified  and  perverted  in  ' just  this  manner,  the  doctrine  of  so- 
called  anti-imperialism  and  “  consent  of  the  governed  ”  is  one  sadly  known  to 
American  history. 

*’,V  "  * 

,  •  a  . i  **  »* 

First  Attack  on  Imperialism. 

Alexander  Long,  of  Ohio,  began  his  celebrated  attack  on  Lincoln  and  impe¬ 
rialism  in  1864  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  8,  saving: 

“A  little  over  three  years  ago  the  present  occupant  of  the  presidential  man¬ 
sion  at  the  other  end  of  the  Avenue,  came  into  this  city  under  cover  of  night 
disguised  in  a  plaid  cloak  and  Scotch  cap,  lest,  as  wa/Teared  by  his  friends,  he 
might  have  received  a  warmer  greeting  than  would  have  been  agreeable  on  his 
way  through  Baltimore.” 


.Ur".'  rK 


Lincoln’s  Militarism. 


Mr.  Long  proceeded  to  argue  that  the  President,  who  had  entered  the  Capi¬ 
tal  in  this  manner,  had,  in  the  course  of  four  years,  established  an  odious  rule  of 
militarism.  He  said: 

“Are  we  not  in  Constantinople,  in  St.  Petersburg,  in  Vienna,  in  Rome,  or  in 
Paris?  Military  government  and  their  provost  marshals  override  the  laws,  and 
the  echo  of  the  armed  heel  rings  forth  as  clearly  now  in  America  as  in  France  or 
in  Austria  ;  and  the  President  sits  to-day  guarded  by  armed  soldiery  stationed 
at  every  approach  leading  to  the  Executive  Mansion.” 

Opposing  this  militarism,  Mr.  Long  demanded  an  immediate  cessation  of  * 
the  war,  saying: 

“Can  the  Union  be  restored  by  war?  I  answer  most  unhesitatingly  and 
deliberately,  no,  never;  war  is  final,  eternal  separation.  My  first  and  highest 
ground  of  opposition  to  its  further  prosecution  is,  that  it  is  wrong;  it  is  in  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  the  federal 
Union  was  founded.  My  second  objection  is  that  as  a  policy,  it  is  not  recon¬ 
structive  but  destructive,  and  will,  if  continued,  result  speedily  in  the  destruction 
of  the  government  and  the  laws  of  civil  liberty  to  both  north  and  south,  and  it 
ought  therefore  to  immediately  cease.” 


Quoting  Jefferson  as  Satan  Quotes  Scripture. 

As  a  further  reason  for  stopping  the  war,  Mr.  Long  quoted  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  precisely  as  Mr.  Bryan  does  to-day,  and  said: 

“Three  years’  experience  in  attempting  by  numerical  preponderance  and 
military  prowess  of  one  section,  exerted  to  coerce  the  other  into  submission,  has 
convinced  me  more  thoroughly  that  it  is  as  self-contradictory  as  it  is  dangerous; 
because  it  violates  the  great  principles  of  free  governments  which  derive  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  dangerous  because  by  its  exer¬ 
cise,  especially  when  wielded  by  a  weak,  vacillating  and  unscrupulous  man,  it 
destroys  instead  of  maintaining  the  Union.” 


Ruinous  Militarism  and  Odious  Emancipation. 

Mr^Long  went  on: 

“  If  the  time  ever  was  when  the  Union  could  have  been  restored  by  war 
(which  I  don’t  believe)  it  has  long  since  been  dispelled  by  emancipation,  con¬ 
scription,  amnesty  and  the  like;  proclamations,  military  orders,  annulling  state 
constitutions,  setting  aside  state  laws,  obliterating  state  lines  and  attempting  to 
organize  and  set  up  a  form  of  state  government  in  their  stead  in  which  if  one  man 
out  of  ten,  who  shall  turn  Abolitionist,  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  to  execute  and 
obey  the  law  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  whatever  it  may  be,  he  shall  govern  and  rule 
over  the  remaining  nine  who  refuse  to  become  Abolitionists.” 


2 


More  Bryanlsm. 


Mr.  Long  continued: 

“  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  cannot  rise  above  the  Austro-Ruesian  principle  of  lidd¬ 
ing  subject  provinces  by  the  power  of  force  and  coercion,  what  becomes  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  of  all  our  teaching  for  eighty  years?  After  all, 
Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  the  extent  of  territory  which  should  be  the  object  of  our 
desires.  Better  sacrifice  even  nine-tenths  of  the  territory  than  destroy  our  Re¬ 
publican  form  of  government  *  *  *  land  is  nothing  compared  to  lib¬ 
erty  *  *  *  pride  of  territorial  ambition  is  a  vulgar  and  low  ambition  of 

national  greatness." 


Lincoln’s  Militarism  Absolute  Ruin  to  the  Union. 

Said  Mr.  Long  further: 

“  It  is  the  object  of  the  sword  to  cut  and  cleave  asunder  but  never  to  unite. 
*  *  *  I  am  reluctantly  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  in  attempting  to  preserve 
our  jurisdiction  over  the  southern  states,  we  have  lost  our  constitutional  form  of 
government  over  the  northern  states.  Our  government,  as  we  all  know,  is  not 
anything  resembling  what  it  was  three  years  ago;  there  is  not  one  single  vestige 
of  the  Constitution  remaining;  every  clause  and  every  letter  of  it  has  been  vio¬ 
lated  and  I  have  no  idea  myself  that  it  will  ever  again  be  respected." 

Mr.  Long  concluded  with  this  avowal,  which  showed  him  to  be  no  war  Demo¬ 
crat,  but  a  believer  in  Bryan’s  doctrine  as  to  the  “  consent  of  the  governed  ": 

“  I  say  further,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  this  war  is  to  be  still  further  prose¬ 
cuted,  I  for  one  prefer  that  it  shall  be  done  under  the  auspices  of  those  who  now 
conduct  its  management,  as  I  do  not  want  the  party  with  which  I  am  connected 
to  be  in  any  degree  responsible  for  its  results,  which  can  not  be  otherwise  than 
disastrous  and  suicidal ;  let  the  responsibility  remain  where  it  is  until  we  can  have 
a  change  of  policy  instead  of  men,  if  such  a  thing  is  possible.  Nothing  could  be 
more  fatal  for  the  Democratic  party  than  to  seek  to  come  into  pow  er,  pledged  to 
a  continuance  of  the  war  policy." 


How  Garfield  Scarified  Long. 

This  speech  of  Long’s  created  a  tremendous  sensation  in  the  house.  Up  to 
that  time  the  war  Democrats  had  controlled  their  party  for  the  most  part  in  the 
house,  but  Mr.  Long,  looking  to  the  opening  presidential  campaign,  tried  to  start 
a  new  policy.  The  first  to  reply  to  him  wras  General  Garfield,  who  sprang  to  his 
feet,  claimed  the  floor,  aud  in  a  manner  indicative  of  great  suppressed  indigna¬ 
tion  said: 

"Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  be  obliged  to  you  if  you  would  direct  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  to  bring  a  white  flag  and  plant  it  in  the  aisle  between  myself  and  m 
colleague,  who  has  just  addressed  you." 

s 


Alluding  to  the  use  of  the  white  flag  with  an  honest  enemy  in  war  and  giving 
Long  credit  for  sincerity  and  candor,  General  Garfield,  then  fresh  from  service  in 
the  army,  went  on  : 

“But  now  I  ask  you  to  take  away  the  flag  of  truce  and  I  will  go  back  inside 
the  Union  lines  and  speak  of  what  he  has  done.  I  am  reminded  by  it  of  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  character  in  Paradise  Lost,  that  ‘when  he  had  rebelled  against  the 
glory  of  God  and  led  away  a  third  part  of  Heaven’s  sons,  conjured  against  the 
Highest,  when  after  terrible  battles  in  which  mountains  and  hills  were  hurled  by 
each  contending  host  with  ‘jaculations  dire’;  wThen  at  last  the  latter  and  his  hosts 
were  hurled  down  nine  times  the  space  that  measures  day  and  night,  and  after 
the  terrible  fall  lay  stretched  prone  on  the  burning  Lake,  Satan  lifted  up  his 
shattered  bulk,  crossed  the  abyss,  looked  down  into  Paradise,  and  soliloquizing, 
said  : 

‘Which  way  I  fly  is  hell ;  myself,  am  hell.’ 

It  seems  to  me  in  that  utterance,  he  expressed  the  very  sentiment  to  which 
you  have  just  listened;  uttered  by  one,  no  less  brave,  malign  and  fallen.  This 
man  gathers  up  the  meaning  of  this  great  contest,  the  philosophy  of  the  moment, 
the  prophesies  of  the  hour  in  sight  of  the  paradise  of  victory  and  peace,  utters 
them  all  in  this  wail  of  terrible  despair,  ‘which  way  I  fly  is  hell.’  He  ought  to 
add,  ‘myself,  am  hell.,  ” 


No  Consent  Asked— Constitution  and  the  Laws  to  Be  Enforced. 

General  Garfield  although  more  profoundly  moved  than  ever  before  or  after¬ 
wards  in  his  service  in  Congress,  nevertheless  proceeded  to  make  this  calm,  logi¬ 
cal,  statesmanlike  reply  to  Long: 

“The  gentleman  has  told  us,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  coercion  justifiable 
under  the  Constitution.  I  ask  him  for  one  moment  to  reflect  that  no  statute  ever 
was  enforced  without  coercion.  It  is  the  basis  of  every  law  in  the  universe — 
God’s  law,  as  well  as  man’s;  a  law  is  no  law  without  coercion  behind  it.  When  a 
man  has  murdered  his  brother,  coercion  takes  the  murderer,  tries  him,  and 
hangs  him.  When  you  levy  your  taxes,  coercion  secures  their  collection;  it  fol¬ 
lows  the  shadow  of  the  thief  and  brings  him  to  justice;  it  accompanies  your 
diplomacy  to  foreign  courtB  and  backs  the  declaration  of  the  Nation’s  rights  by  a 
pledge  of  the  Nation’s  power;  but  when  the  life  of  that  nation  is  imperilled  we 
are  told  it  has  no  coercive  power  against  the  parricides  in  its  own  bosom.” 


Bryanism  Considered  Treason  in  1864. 

With  this  all-sufficient  reply  from  the  standpoint  of  logic  and  law,  General 
Garfield  could  no  longer  restrain  the  righteous  indignation  which  boiled  within 
him.  He  said: 

“  Now  in  the  quiet  of  these  halls,  hatched  in  the  lowest  depths  of  a  dark 
treason,  there  rises  a  Benedict  Arnold  and  proposes  to  surrender  us  all  up,  body 


and  spirit,  the  nation  and  the  flag,  its  genius,  and  its  honor,  now  and  forever,  to 
the  accursed  traitors  of  our  country,  and  that  proposition  comes — God  forgive 
and  pity  my  beloved  state — it  comes  from  a  citizen  of  the  honored  and  loyal  com¬ 
monwealth  of  Ohio. 

I  implore  you,  brethren  in  this  house,  not  to  believe  that  many  such  births 
ever  give  pangs  to  my  mother  state  such  as  she  suffered  when  that  traitor  was 
born  [suppressed  applause  and  sensation].  I  beg  you  not  to  believe  that  on  the 
soil  of  that  state  another  such  growth  has  ever  deformed  the  face  of  nature  and 
forgotten  the  light  of  God’s  day  [an  audible  whisper,  ‘Vallandigham’]  but  ah,  I 
am  reminded  there  are  other  such.  My  zeal  and  love  for  Ohio  have  carried  me 
too  far.” 


Effort  to  Expel  Long  as  a  Traitor. 

The  indignation  excited  by  Long’s  speech  did  not  subside  even  after  Garfield’s 
reply.  The  next  day,  April  9th,  Speaker  Colfax  left  his  chair  and  came  down  to 
the  floor  to  address  the  house.  Among  other  things  he  said: 

“You  should  call  no  more  soldiers  into  the  field  to  endeavor  by  the  peril  of 
their  lives  to  save  this  country,  because  it  is  a  solemn  mockery  to  do  so  if  from 
this  hall  shall  go  forth  the  words  of  encouragement  to  strengthen  those  arrayed 
against  them  in  an  unholy  and  parricidal  work.” 

Mr.  Colfax  then  offered  the  following  resolution: 

“Resolved,  that  Alexander  Long,  a  representative  from  the  second  district  of 
Ohio,  having  on  the  8th  of  April,  1864,  declared  himself  in  favor  of  recognizing  the 
independence  and  nationality  of  the  so-called  confederacy  now  in  arms  against 
the  Union,  and  thereby  give  aid,  countenance  and  encouragement  to  persons  en¬ 
gaged  in  armed  hostility  to  the  United  States,  is  hereby  expelled.” 

Practically  the  entire  Democratic  side  rallied  to  the  defense  of  Mr.  Long. 
Allen,  of  Illinois,  Harris  of  Maryland,  Cox  of  Ohio,  Wood  of  New  York,  Voorhees 
of  Indiana,  and  Pendleton  of  Ohio  were  among  those  who  spoke  in  his  defense. 
In  the  course  of  the  discussion  Harris  of  Maryland  used  language  fully  as  treason¬ 
able  as  Long,  and  a  resolution  to  expel  him  was  introduced,  but  failed  of  a  two- 
thirds  vote,  the  roll  call  showing  eighty-one  for  expulsion  and  fifty-eight  against. 
Some  Republicans  took  the  ground  that  free  speech  could  not  be  in  any  way 
abridged  in  the  house.  The  resolution  was  then  changed  to  one  of  censure,  de¬ 
claring  Harris  “an  unworthy  member  of  this  house,”  which  was  adopted  by 
ninety -three  to  eighteen.  A  similar  change  was  then  made  in  the  resolution  af¬ 
fecting  Long,  and  it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  eighty  to  sixty-nine. 

Long,  who  was  not  merely  an  antr-war  man  but  a  peace  Democrat  (otherwise 
known  as  copperheads),  not  only  succeeded  in  bringing  the  party  to  his  support 
in  Congress,  but  as  a  delegate  in  the  National  Democratic  convention  a  few 
months  later,  made  a  speech  in  which  he  denounced  Lincoln’s  “odious  emanci¬ 
pation  proclamation.”  It  will  be  noted  that  this  entire  proceeding,  hideous  and 
disgraceful  as  it  was,  arose  from  an  adoption  of  the  precise  dogma  which  Bryan 
is  proclaiming  to-day  as  to  the  consent  of  the  governed,  militarism  and  coercion. 


o 


The  Bryan-Long  Parallel 


Bryan’s  Indianapolis  speech  opened  the  campaign  of  1900,  just  as  E.  D. 
Washburne  said  that  Alexander  Long  struck  the  keynote  for  1864.  A  few  of  his 
utterances  and  those  of  others  of  the  same  copperhead  stripe  (including  Vallan- 
digham,  who  was  afterwards  sent  through  the  lines  for  treason),  may  well  be  set 
in  close  comparison  with  those  of  Bryan  now. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

Compare,  if  you  will,  the  swaggering, 
bullying  and  brutal  doctrine  of  imperi¬ 
alism  with  the  Golden  Rule. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

They  must  expect  the  subject  races 
to  protest  against  such  a  policy  and  to 
resist  to  the  extent  of  their  ability  *  * 
*  *  Our  whole  history  is  an  encourage¬ 
ment  to  all  who  are  denied  a  voice  in 
their  own  government. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis,  1900. 

I  assert  that  on  the  important  issues 
of  the  day,  the  Republican  party  is  dom¬ 
inated  by  those  influences  which  con¬ 
stantly  tend  to  elevate  pecuniary  con¬ 
siderations  and  ignore  human  rights. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  own  people  in 
order  to  trade  with  them.  We  carry  on 
trade  to-day  with  every  part  of  the 
world  and  our  commerce  has  expanded 
more  rapidly  than  the  commerce  of  any 
European  power.  We  do  not  own  Japan 
or  China,  but  we  trade  with  their  peoples. 


Bryan’s  Indianapolis  Speech,  August 
8th,  1900. 

But  if  it  were  possible  to  obliterate 
every  word  written  or  spoken  in  de¬ 
fense  of  the  principles  set  forth  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  a  war 
of  conquest  would  still  leave  its  legacy  of 
perpetual  hatred,  for  it  was  God  himself 


C.  L.  Valiandigham,  Speech,  Jan.  14, 

1863. 

The  spirit  of  non-intervention  is  the 
very  spirit  of  peace  and  concord. 


Fernando  Wood,  Jan.  14,  1864. 

No  government  can  be  lasting  that  is 
not  founded  on  the  consent  of  the  gov¬ 
erned  *  *  *  these  political  jackals, 
known  as  war  Democrat^  *  *  *  the 
bloody  and  brutal  policies  of  the  ad¬ 
ministration.— [Lincoln.]  *  *  *  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  a  war  Democrat. 


Fernando  Wood,  April  19,  1864,  In  the 

House, 

Said  the  government  under  the  Lincoln 
Administration  “chose  rather  to  increase 
the  rent  of  the  poor  man’s  tenement 
than  to  dim  the  lustre  of  the  jobber’s 
palace.” 


Alexander  Long,  Demanding  Recognition 
of  the  Southern  Confederacy. 

The  great  object  of  our  government 
should  be  to  develop  and  cultivate  the 
internal  resources  of  those  friendly  to  its 
jurisdiction  rather  than  to  extend  it  over 
hostile  and  foreign  peoples  [Confeder¬ 
ates.] 


Alexander  Long  In  the  House,  February 
7th,  1865. 

Every  month  it  [the  war]  has  been 
continued  for  coercion  and  subjugation 
has  only  tended  to  cement,  perpetuate, 
and  tradition alize  hatred  of  the  north  in 
every  southern  household. 


e 


who  placed  in  every  human  heart  the 
love  of  liberty.  He  never  made  a  race  of 
people  so  low  in  the  scale  of  civilization 
or  intelligence  that  it  would  welcome  a 
foreign  master. 


Mr.  Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

If  we  are  to  govern  them  [the  Filip¬ 
pinos]  without  their  consent,  and  give 
them  no  voice  in  determining  the  taxes 
which  they  must  pay,  we  dare  not  edu¬ 
cate  them  lest  they  learn  to  read  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
mock  us  for  our  inconsistencies. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

That  the  leaders  of  a  great  party 
should  claim  for  any  President  or  Con¬ 
gress  the  right  to  treat  millions  of  peo¬ 
ple  as  mere  possessions  and  deal  wi; 
them  unrestrained  by  the  Constitutioj 
or  the  bill  of  rights,  shows  how  far  we 
have  already  departed  from  the  ancient 
landmarks,  and  indicates  what  may  be 
expected  if  this  nation  deliberately  en¬ 
ters  upon  a  career  of  empire. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

Better  a  thousand  times  that  our  flag 
in  the  Orient  give  way  to  the  flag  rep¬ 
resenting  the  idea  of  self-government, 
than  that  the  flag  of  this  Republic 
should  become  the  flag  of  an  empire. 


Benjamin  G.  Harris  of  Maryland— Same 
Debate. 

If  we  are  to  have  dissolution,  in  the 
name  of  God,  let  us  have  it.  Let  us  have 
it,  and  instead  of  having  one  great  con¬ 
solidated  government,  one  imperial  gov¬ 
ernment,  one  splendid  government,  let 
us  have  on  this  continent  two  happy 
governments. 


Alexander  Long— Same  Debate. 

The  experiment,  now  being  tried  at  so 
fearful  a  sacrifice  of  blood  and  treasure 
will  in  the  end  demonstrate  to  the  world 
that  confederacies  can  not  be  held  good 
by  the  mad  policy  of  coercion.  Govern¬ 
ments  deriving  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed  and  existing 
only  in  the  hearts  and  affections  of  the 
people,  can  not  be  held  together  by  force. 
*  *  *  There  never  has  been  and  never 
can  be  a  Union  founded  on  the  coercion 
and  subjugation  of  sovereign  states. 


Alexander  Long— Same  Debate. 

Engaged  In  the  pursuance  of  wealth 
and  material  pleasures,  they  have  ap- 
parenty  taken  little  interest  in  the 
question  [preservation  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion],  content  even  to  accept  a  despot¬ 
ism  that  did  not  prohibit  their  sacri¬ 
fices  at  the  footstool  of  mammon. 
Their  only  idea  has  been  to  preserve 
the  territory,  the  land,  of  the  Republic 
intact;  and  if  that  was  effected,  the  form 
and  nature  of  the  government  over  it 
was  a  secondary  consideration. 


Alexander  Long. 

The  Union  of  1789  is  gone  never  to  be 
restored.  If  we  who  yet  claim  to  be 
under  the  forms  of  the  Constitution 
would  save  anything  from  a  political 
and  social  wreck;  if  we  desire  even  to 
make  an  effort  to  again  recover  our  lost 
condition,  we  must  abandon  the  war, 
recognize  the  sovereignty  and  separate 
independence  of  the  states  and  their 
right  of  self-government,  and  then  be¬ 
gin  the  work  of  reorganization  anew  in 
a  spirit  of  mutual  compromise  and  con¬ 
cession. 


T 


Adlal  Stevenson  at  Indianapolis. 

Against  this  policy  stands  imperialism. 
Imperialism  knows  nothing  of  limita¬ 
tions  of  power.  Its  rule  is  outside  the 
Constitution.  It  means  the  establish¬ 
ment  by  the  American  Republic  of  the 
colonial  methods  of  European  monarch¬ 
ies.  It  means  the  right  to  hold  alien 
peoples  as  subjects.  It  enthrones  force 
as  the  controlling  agency  in  government. 
It  means  the  empire. 


Bryan  at  Indianapolis. 

If  governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  gov¬ 
erned  it  is  impossible  to  secure  title  to 
people  either  by  force  or  by  purchase. 


C.  L.  Vallandigham  Speeoh,  January 
14,  1 863. 

I  have  denounced  from  the  beginning 
the  usurpations  and  the  infractions,  one 
and  all,  of  law  and  Constitution  by  the 
President  [Lincoln]  and  those  under  him. 

J.  K.  Edgerton  in  his  speech  of  Febru¬ 
ary  20,  1865,  said  there  was  one  choice 
only: 

“A  separation  of  the  sections  or  a  war 
of  absolute  subrogation  or  extermina¬ 
tion  of  the  states  to  end  in  military  and 
monarchical  despotism. 

“Lincoln  loves  power;  he  will  bear  no 
rival  near  the  throne  to  share  his  honors 
as  the  great  emancipator.” 


George  Bliss  of  Ohio  in  a  Copperhead 
Speeoh  of  March  12,  1864,  in 
the  Bouse. 

They  [the  Southern  States]  are  to  be 
governments  not  in  the  language  of  the 
Dec’aration  of  Independence,  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  but  as  governments  im¬ 
posed  upon  the  people  by  the  omnipo¬ 
tency  of  the  President  [Lincoln.] 


A  Dangerous  Doctrine  Mow  and  Then. 

No  honorable  Democrat  cares  to  revive  this  deplorable  incident  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  his  party,  where  the  anti-war  or  peace  element  (known  in  that  day  as 
copperheads)  gained  the  ascendency,  overpowered  the  loyal  war  Democrats  and 
committed  the  organization  to  a  wrongheaded  and  disgraceful  opposition  to  Lin¬ 
coln,  but  everyone  should  know  that  disgraceful  transaction  was  done  in  the 
name  of  the  precise  doctrine  Bryan  is  preaching  now— zeal  for  consent  of  the 
governed  and  opposition  to  alleged  militarism. 

When  men  like  Vallandigham  and  Long  and  Bryan  go  to  putting  their  anar¬ 
chist  interpretations  on  the  teachings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  it  is  time  to  throw 
•  out  cautionary  signals.  Now,  as  in  1864,  there  is  danger  of  great  dishonor  to  the 
Democratic  party  from  an  unworthy  leader  and  of  alarm  to  the  country  from  the 
renewal  of  a  destructive  dogma.  Appropriately  enough,  this  theory  of  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  governed,  as  fanatically  pushed  beyond  all  limits,  is  being  preached 
by  Mr.  Bryan  in  the  same  sentences  which  breathe  forth  threats  not  only  against 
the  financial  honor  of  the  country  and  the  authority  of  its  Supreme  Court,  but 
against  the  proper  and  orderly  action  of  the  people  themselvei. 


8 


t 


The  Climax  of  Mob  Rule. 


Eating  of  the  same  insane  root  which  drove  Long  and  Vallandigham  into 

» 

political  madness  in  1864,  Mr.  Bryan  put  a  fit  climax  to  his  dangerous  and  dis¬ 
torted  doctrine  when  in  his  speech  at  Springfield,  Ohio,  he  said  to  the  crowd : 

“You  have  the  power  and  the  right  to  take  the  reins  of  government  into  your  ovm 
hands  and  administer  the  law,  not  for  foreign  syndicates,  but  for  the  people  of 
the  United  States.” 

After  Mr.  Bryan  had  been  criticised  for  this  dangerous  doctrine,  he  deliber¬ 
ately  repeated  it  with  emphasis,  saying  in  hie  speech  at  Ottumwa,  Iowa  : 

“The  people  suffer  until  suffering  ceases  to  be  a  virtue;  they  are  patient  until 
patience  is  exhausted,  and  then  they  arouse  themselves ,  take  the  reins  of  government , 
and  put  the  government  back  upon  its  old  foundation.” 

John  C.  Calhoun  never  equalled  that.  Let  it  be  said  of  the  arch-nullifier  that 
he  contemplated  a  three-fourths  vote  of  all  the  states  as  necessary  to  give  full  and 
final  validity  and  power  to  an  ordinance  of  nullification.  He  had,  at  least,  some 
respect  for  the  provision  of  the  Federal  Constitution  which  requires  two-thirds 
of  Congress  or  of  the  state  legislatures  to  propose  amendments,  and  then  a  three- 
fourths  vote  of  all  the  states  to  ratify  them.  Such  is  the  requirement  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  but  Bryan  tells 'the  crowd  they  can  change  or  alter  the  government  at 
their  own  will  without  regard  to  the  Constitution. 

Appropriately  enough  did  this  same  Bryan  call  out  in  his  speech  at  Brooklyn 
four  years  ago: 

“The  Supreme  Court  changes  from  time  to  time.  Judges  die  or  resign,  and 
new  judges  take  their  places.  When  did  our  opponents  find  that  a  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  was  so  sacred  ?  ” 

It  is  time  for  the  people  to  say  what  they  think  of  pushing  the  doctrines  of 
Thomas  Jefferson  to  such  excess  and  danger.  In  1864  it  meant  Copperheadism 
and  virtual  treason,  and  in  1900  it  smacks  of  political  mob  rule  and  the  overthrow 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  doctrine  of  those  who  assailed  Lincoln  has  been  quoted  not  merely  to 
show  the  grotesque  absurdity  or  inconsistency  of  Bryan  in  citing  him  now. 
Beyond  that — instructive  to  the  people  as  that  is — they  should  see  that  the  vapor- 
ings  against  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  demagogical  misrepresentation  of  pop¬ 
ular  authority  are  rooted  in  the  old  copperhead  doctrine  of  1864,  which  now,  as 
in  the  past  and  the  future,  must  of  necessity  put  forth  only  evil  and  dangerous 
fruit. 


s 


Adlal  Stevenson  Too. 

As  if  to  make  the  connection  between  the  distorted  consent  of  the  governed 
dogma  in  1864  and  1900  perfectly  clear,  it  was  not  left  for  Bryan  to  preach  the  old 
doctrine  from  the  old  text,  but  Adlai  Stevenson  had  to  be  put  on  the  ticket  with 
him.  Mr.  Stevenson  is  an  old  timer  whose  political  activity  dates  back  to  1864, 
when  he  was  a  candidate  for  presidential  elector  on  the  consent  of  the  governed 
platform  of  that  year  as  gotten  up  by  the  Longs  and  Yallandighams  and  other 


9 


enemies  of  Lincoln.  He  stood  on  that  platform  and  in  pnblic  speeches  approved 
all  its  utterances,  including  the  declaration  that  the  war  for  the  Union  was  a  fail¬ 
ure.  The  doctrine  which  Bryan  preaches  is  no  new  thing  to  Stevenson. 


Stevenson’s  Record. 

« 

“There  seems  to  be  a  general  belief  that  Adlai  E.  Stevenson  has  a  war  record,” 
said  ex-Governor  Hamilton  of  Illinois,  in  an  interview  in  Chicago,  June  24,  1892, 
“and  so  he  has,  but  it  is  not  exactly  the  record  that  will  make  him  popular  with 
lovers  of  the  Union,  or  will  make  the  battle-scarred  veteran  enthusiastic  in  his 
support.” 

“Now,”  continued  the  ex-governor,  “I  do  not  want  to  do  anything  or  to  be 
quoted  as  saying  anything  harsh  in  regard  to  Mr.  Stevenson.  He  and  I  are 
friends.  We  practiced  law  at  the  same  time  in  Bloomington.  Together  and  op¬ 
posed  to  each  other,  we  have  fought  many  a  hard  legal  battle.  We  were  neigh¬ 
bors,  and  the  members  of  our  families  were  very  intimate.  So  I  do  not  wish  to 
be  construed  as  making  any  personal  attack  on  Mr.  Stevenson.  When  I  was  a 
boy  I  lived  in  Marshall  County.  It  was  during  the  war,  and  Mr.  Stevenson  was 
said  to  be  a  most  unrelenting  copperhead.  It  was  generally  so  understood  and 
accepted  as  a  fact.  He  was  in  fact  a  most  intense  sympathizer  with  the  rebels  in 
the  South.” 

“I  belonged  to  what  was  known  then  as  a  Union  League.  Opposed  to  us  was 
the  organization  known  as  a  Golden  Circle.  It  was  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
assisting  the  rebel  cause  and  aiding  them,  not  only  by  expressions  of  sympathy, 
but  in  every  possible  way,  even  to  fitting  out  men  for  the  southern  army.  Mr. 
Stevenson  was,  so  it  was  said,  a  permanent  officer  in  that  region;  in  fact,  it  was 
claimed  by  some  that  he  was  an  organizer.  As  long  as  he  remained  in  that  dis¬ 
trict,  he  had  the  reputation  of  having  once  been  a  copperhead.  When  he  made 
his  races  for  Congress  the  thing  has  been  brought  up  repeatedly,  and  these 
charges  are  of  long  standing  in  Bloomington.  I  understand  it  is  claimed  by  some 
that  the  Bloomington  Pantagraph  has  affidavits  of  men  who  swear  that  as  an  offi¬ 
cer  of  the  Golden  Circle  he  had  drilled  them.  There  was  a  place  in  Woodward 
County  known  as  Hoosham’s  Pasture,  a  secluded,  quiet  place  where  the  drills 
took  place.” 


x  „ 

Shooting  Niagara. 

Up  to  the  winter  of  1864,  a  considerable  number  of  Democrats  in  Congress 
held  back  from  the  ultra  and  destructive  interpretation  of  the  Declara.ion  of  In¬ 
dependence,  but  the  Long-Vallandigham  outburst  drew  the  lines  and  forced  them 
to  take  a  stand  for  or  against  Lincoln,  to  become  War  Democrats  or  go  over  to  the 
Copperheads.  It  was  impossible  to  shoot  Niagara  and  stop  half  way  down. 
Those  who  were  not  for  the  Union  were  against  it,  and  could  not  claim  to  be  true 
loyalists  while  fighting  Lincoln  with  false  cries  of  militarism  and  imperialism. 


10 


Among  those  who  then  sounded  the  cry  of  militarism  loudest  was  Congressman 
John  D.  Stiles,  of  Pennsylvania,  who  said  in  the  House,  July  4th,  1864: 

“Sir,  it  would  seem  that  an  offended  God  has  already  made  visible  the  signs 
of  retribution  for  the  recklessness  with  which  we  have  been  plunged  into  civil 
strife.  Our  deluded  people  have  witnessed  as  its  consequences  the  destruction 
of  all  that  was  most  precious  to  them  of  their  political  inheritance.  The  shrine 
of  their  liberty  has  been  profaned  and  its  costly  treasures  trampled  under  foot. 
They  have  seen  the  bayonet  at  their  ballot  boxes,  the  bayonet  in  their  courts  of 
justice,  the  bayonet  in  their  legislati  ve  halls,  at  their  homesteads,  and  at  their 
bedsides  in  the  dead  of  night.  At  every  place  once  held  sacred  the  bayonet  has 
been  seen,  threatening,  insulting,  and  applying  the  rule  of  force  to  the  will  of 
freemen.” 


Lincoln  a  Caesar. 

“We  have  seen  the  elective  franchise  controlled  by  armed  force  in  States 
powerless  to  resist  the  minions  of  tyranny  who  thwarted  them  in  the  exercise  of 
their  most  sacred  right.  Our  Caesar  then  passed  his  Rubicon,  and  the  Republic 
may  well  fear  that  he  will  not  henceforward  pause  in  his  unlawful  career,  unless 
he  be  swept  from  its  course  by  the  torrent  of  the  popular  will  sustaining  the  bal¬ 
lot-box,  if  need  be,  with  weapons  as  those  which  have  assailed  it.” 


Militarism  with  a  Vengeance. 

Another  Copperhead  who  foamed  with  charges  of  militarism  against  the  Lincoln 
Administration  was  Congressman  Andrew  J.  Rogers  of  New  Jersey.  Hear  him  in  his 
speech  of  April  14,  1864: 

“When  I  reflect  upon  the  awful  and  solemn  events  which  surround  us,  I  can  but 
weep  for  the  unity  and  liberties  of  my  country,  and  I,  in  these  once  sacred  Halls  of 
Congress,  raise  my  humble  voice  and  call  upon  every  man,  women  and  child  in  this 
land,  and  entreat  them  to  advocate  some  reasonable  compromise  before  our 
country’s  doom  shall  be  forever  sealed.  My  soul  sickens  at  the  radicalism  and 
fanaticism  of  the  age,  unnecessarily  squandering  away  our  resources,  wasting  our 
public  treasure,  and  spilling  the  people’s  blood.” 


Wailing  over  the  Declaration. 

Then,  as  now,  there  was  loud  wailing  over  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
Said  Mr.  Rogers: 

“The  rights  of  free  speech  are  principles  of  liberty  that  are  laid  down  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  in  the  Constitution  of  my  country.  Sir,  without 
liberty  the  Union  is  worth  nothing.  I  want  no  such  Union  as  that.  It  is  not  such  a 
one  as  our  fathers  made,  it  is  not  such  a  one  as  the  patriots  and  statesmen  of  the 
times  that  tried  men’s  souls  established  and  consolidated  for  the  protection  and 
'efense  of  the  liberties  of  the  white  race  of  America.  It  is  a  Union  of  despotism  and 
tyranny,  not  a  Union  of  fraternal  independent  States,  each  legislating  for  itself  ita 
own  internal  policy.  It  is  a  Union  without  freedom  of  debate,  without  freedom  to 


li 


exercise  the  constitutional  right  of  free  speech,  that  right  which  has  been  guaranteed 
to  us  by  the  laws  of  God  and  man.  It  is  a  Union  without  freedom  from  those  uncon¬ 
stitutional,  outrageous,  and  tyrannical  acts  which  have  characterized  the  Admin¬ 
istration  in  powTer.” 


Voorhees  of  Indiana  on  Consent  of  the  Governed. 


But  perhaps  no  one  in  the  Long-Vallandigham  crew  wailed  louder  over  the  ruin 
of  the  country  or  assailed  Lincoln  and  his  alleged  militarism  more  bitterly  than 
Voorhees  of  Indiana,  who  in  his  speech  of  March  5,  1864,  said: 

“The  rebel  chief  at  Richmond,  who  makes  open  war  against  the  Union,  and  the 
Executive  here  who  does  not  make  war  for  it,  and  who  would  not  accept  its  restora¬ 
tion  today  on  the  ancient  doctrines  of  the  Constitution,  are  engaged  by  conscription, 
force  aud  violence  in  hurling  against  each  other  the  unwilling  and  peaceful  popula¬ 
tions  of  every  section,  bleeding,  palpitating,  and  mangled,  to  struggle,  to  combat 

and  to  die,  like  the  gladiators  in  the  amphitheatre  of  Rome,  butchered  to  make  a 

_  * 

Roman  holiday.  These  are  facts  which  will  not  escape  history,  and  yet  the  consent 
of  the  governed  is  the  just  measure  of  power  which  a  public  ruler  can  exercise  in  a 
free  government,  and  we  fondly  imagine  that  we  still  are  freel  ” 


Present  Day  Anti-9mper;alists  Outdone. 

Mr.  Voorhees  in  his  speech  of  March  5,  1864,  said: 

“This  government  is  dying;  dying,  sir,  dying.  We  are  standing  around  its  bed 
of  death  and  will  soon  be  .wretched  mourners  at  its  tomb  unless  the  sovereign  and 
heroic  remedy  is  soon  applied.” 

It  was  not  the  war  or  the  acts  of  the  confederates  in  arms  which  Mr.  Voorhees  de¬ 
plored  as  putting  the  life  of  the  nation  in  peril.  Not  at  all.  It  was  because  Lincoln 
and  the  Republicans  were  not  faithful  to  the  Constitution,  which  was  intended  to 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  whereas,  said  Mr.  Voorhees : 

“Who  will  dare  rise  in  his  place  and  say  this  government  has  been  administered 
during  the  last  three  years  in  a  mode  even  tending  toward  the  accomplishment  of 
these  grand  results?  The  very  foundations  of  civilized  jurisprudence  have  been  torn 
away  and  the  whole  edifice  is  in  ruins.  Not  one  right  which  constitutes  the  freedom 
and  safety  of  the  citizen  but  what  has  been  wickedly  and  wantonly  violated.” 


Lincoln  and  His  Subordinates  in  Grime. 

It  was  this  speech  of  March  5,  1864  (Cong.  Globe,  Part  4,  Page  73),  in  which  Mr. 
Voorhees  exclaimed  against  “  the  executive  or  his  subordinates  in  crime  ”  who  had 
swept  away  the  jury  system. 


12 


Lincoln's  HeiBish  Dance  of  Glee. 


Mr.  Yoorhees  continued: 

“Will  some  poor  crawling  and  despised  sycophant  and  tool  of  executive  despot¬ 
ism  [under  Lincoln]  dare  to  say,  I  shall  not  pronounce  the  name  of  Vallandigham  ? 
*  -*  *  There  is  not  one  square  mile  of  free  soil  in  the  American  republic.  It  is  slave 
territory  from  the  Aristook  to  the  Columbia.  *  *  *  They  [Lincoln  and  his  sup¬ 
porters]  invoked  the  storm  which  has  since  rained  blood  upon  the  land.  They 
danced  with  hellish  glee  around  the  bubbling  caldron  of  civil  war  and  welcomed 
with  ferocious  joy  every  hurtful  mischief  which  flickered  in  its  lurid  and  infernal 
flames.” 


Revival  of  Copperhead  Doctrine. 

Let  no  man  say  there  is  no  significance  in  the  revival  now  of  the  lurid  and  baleful 
Copperhead  doctrine  of  1864.  It  is  the  old  text,  the  old  preaching,  and  the  results 
can  only  be  the  cultivation  of  a  dangerous  and  disloyal  spirit — a  destructive  animus 
which,  as  formulated  now  by  Mr.  Bryan,  its  principal  spokesman,  appropriately 
enough  and  in  accordance  with  its  fell  purpose,  aims  at  the  integrity  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  honor  of  the  Nation’s  financial  system  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
Nation’s  authority  in  the  Phillipines.  It  can  not  now  assail  the  very  Union  itself, 
but  it  menaces  with  deadly  purpose  much  which  makes  that  Union  what  it  is.  The 
governed  are  not  to  consent  to  the  preservation  of  the  gold  standard,  the  enforce¬ 
ment  of  law  and  treaty  obligations  in  the  Phillipines  nor  even  to  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  at  home.  All  sorts  of  anarchy  hatch  from  that  old  egg. 

In  1864  the  Longs  and  Yallandighams  fanatically  turned  the  “consent  of  the 
governed”  clause  of  the  Declaration  against  itself  and  perverted  it  into  sectional 
anarchy — turned  it  into  a  falsified  shield  behind  which  seceding  states  were  to  defy 
the  laws  and  constitution  of  the  Union. 

With  fanaticism  like  the  Longs,  and  with  the  scent  of  a  hound  for  dangerous 
demagogy,  Bryan  now  seizes  on  the  old  Copperhead  perversion  of  1864.  He  invokes 
it  now,  not  to  protect  seceding  states  and  save  slavery,  but  for  ends  well  nigh  as  foul 
and  wrong — to  estop  the  assertion  of  national  authority  and  the  suppression  of  in¬ 
surrection  in  our  new  possessions.  Moreover,  as  if  to  show  how  dangerous  this  per¬ 
version  must  ever  be,  Bryan,  characteristically  and  appropriately  enough  for  one 
ever  keen  to  torture  honest  doctrine,  tells  the  people  they  can  “take  the  reins  into 
their  own  hands  ”  and  rule  regardless  of  the  Constitution,  sweeping  away  its  provi¬ 
sions  by  mere  majorities,  and,  to  say  nothing  of  overthrowing  financial  honor,  may 
subject  even  the  Supreme  Court  to  populistic  domination. 

The  American  people  may  be  trusted  to  condemn  this  insidious  and  dangerous 
demagogy.  As  Daniel  Webster  said  in  one  of  his  great  arguments,  the  people  have 
seen  fit  to  put  limits  to  their  own  power;  and  they  will  surely  rebuke  the  man  who, 
torturing  and  perverting  the  Declaration  of  Independence  itself,  tells  them  they  can 
‘take  the  reins  into  their  own  hands  ”  regardless  of  the  Constitution  or  the  Supreme 
Court. 


13 


Failures  are  Fewer. 

Less  Business  Wreckage  Under  the  McKinley  Administration 

than  in  Eighteen  Years. 

Calamity  Howler  Struck  Dumb  by  General  Prosperity’s  Remarkable  Exhibit- 

Disastrous  Effect  of  Democracy  and  Free  Trade — Success  of  Republican  Pro¬ 
tection. 

The  real  prosperity  of  a  country  can  always  be  judged  by  the  number  of  fail¬ 
ures  among  its  business  men.  It  is  an  astonishing  tribute  to  the  sound  state  o  1 
our  finances  and  prosperous  commercial  condition  when  Bradstreet’s  mercantile 
agency  reports  for  the  first  six  months  of  the  calendar  year,  1900,  the  smallest 
number  of  failures  noted  for  eighteen  years  past.  This  is  a  showing  for  McKinley 
prosperity  that  must  strike  the  calamity  howlers  dumb. 

The  records  of  the  mercantile  agency  show  that  for  the  first  six  months  of  1892 
the  business  failures  of  the  country  were  6,351,  with  liabilities  of  $56,535,521. 

In  November  of  that  year  the  Democratic  party  was  voted  into  power,  and  in 
March,  1893,  took  charge  of  the  country’s  finances.  The  first  six  months  of  that 
year  showed  failures  of  6,239  in  number,  with  liabilities  of  over  $70,000,000. 

All  through  the  Democratic  free  trade  Wilson  Bill  administration  the  number 
of  failures  steadily  increased  until  the  first  six  months  of  1896,  when  they  reached 
the  high  water  mark,  viz.:  7,602,  with  liabilities  of  $105,535,936. 

In  November  of  that  year  McKinley  prosperity  was  voted  in,  and  the  number 
of  failures  steadily  declined,  until  the  first  six  months  of  1900  show  only  4,880 
failures,  with  liabilities  of  $60,064,208,  the  smallest  number  reported  for  eighteen 
years. 

In  the  following  tables  are  compared  the  first  six  months  of  1896,  the  last  year 
of  the  last  Democratic  administration,  with  the  first  six  months  of  1900,  the  last 
year  of  President  McKinley’s  present  administration.  This  compares  the  results 
of  nearly  four  years  of  both  policies  on  the  business  affairs  of  the  country. 
These  tables  are  worthy  of  the  careful  consideration  of  the  free  traders  and 
free  silver  men,  as  well  as  of  those  who  believe  in  the  prosperity  and  protec¬ 
tion  of  a  Republican  Administration.  Thus: 


EASTERN  STATES. 


Number  of  Failures  for  Six  Months. 


Maine . . 

New  Hampshire . 

Vermont . 

Massachusetts . . 

Rhode  Island . 

Connecticut . 

Total  Eastern  State* 


WESTERN  STATES. 

Ohio . 

Indiana . 

Illinois . 

Missouri . 

Michigan . . . 

Kansas . . . 

Kentucky . . 

Colorado . 

Total  Western  States . 


1896. 

1900. 

140 

63 

73 

55 

37 

65 

550 

756 

43 

46 

125 

104 

968 

1,084 

1896. 

1900. 

406 

ISO 

155 

57 

412 

219 

330 

197 

173 

66 

387 

164 

152 

78 

11 

36 

2,026 

987 

14 


NORTHWESTERN  STATES. 


Wisconsin . 

Minnesota . 

Iowa . 

Nebraska . . . 

South  Dakota . 

North  Dakota . 

Montana . 

Wyoming . 

Total  Northwestern  States 


MIDDLE  STATES. 


New  York . 

New  Jersey . 

Pennsylvania . 

Delaware . 

Total  Middle  States 


SOUTHERN  STATE8. 


Maryland . 

Virginia . 

West  Virginia . 

North  Carolina . 

South  Carolina . 

Georgia . 

Florida . . . 

Alabama . 

Mississippi . 

Louisiana . 

Texas  . 

Tennessee . 

Arkansas . 

District  of  Columbia . 

Total  Southern  States 


PACIFIC  STATES. 


California . 

Oregon . . 

Nevada . . 

Utah . 

Washington . 

Idaho . 

Total  Pacific  States 


TERRITORIES. 


Arizona . 

Indian  Territory 

New  Mexico . 

Alaska . 

Oklahoma . 

Total* . 


1896. 

1900. 

184 

70 

197 

79 

178 

113 

125 

40 

24 

28 

6 

4 

25 

13 

3 

6 

742 

353 

1896. 

1900. 

1,059 

857 

110 

102 

673 

428 

10 

11 

1,852 

1,269 

1896. 

1900. 

75 

38 

134 

35 

21 

24 

30 

37 

24 

17 

101 

64 

24 

16 

45 

35 

69 

31 

107 

47 

335 

124 

80 

70 

68 

53 

28 

8 

1,161 

599 

1896. 

1900. 

515 

257 

38 

53 

3 

45 

30 

104 

33 

12 

6 

764 

382 

1896. 

1900. 

12 

2 

19 

38 

21 

2 

1 

•  •  • 

36 

34 

80 


76 


15 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ABOVE. 


Eastern  States . 

Middle  States . . 

Western  States . 

Northwestern  States . 

Southern  States . 

Pacific  States . 

Territories . 

Total — United  States 


1896. 

1900 

968 

1,084 

1,852 

1,398 

2,026 

987 

742 

353 

1,161 

599 

764 

382 

89 

77 

7,602 

4,880 

The  liabilities  of  those  failing  for  the  first  six  months  of  the  two  years  com¬ 
pared  are  as  follows : 


1896 

Eastern  States . $  11,233,158 

Middle  States . 33,320,605 

Western  States .  30,342,383 

Northwestern  States .  10,567,612 

Southern  States . 13,847,302 

Pacific  States .  5,651,076 

Territories . *  563,800 


1900. 

$  13,898,018 
29,704,398 
6,435,335 
3,409,502 
4,001,299 
2,402,600 
211 ,866 


Totals 


$105,535,936 


$60,064,208 


It  will  be  noted  that  the  liabilities  of  those  failing  in  the  Middle  States  in  the 
first  six  months  of  1900  were  $3,616,207  lesn  than  they  were  in  1896.  In  the  West¬ 
ern  States  they  were  $23,907,048  less.  In  the  Northwestern  States  they  were  $7,- 
158,110  less.  In  the  Southern  States  they  were  $9,846,103  less.  In  the  Pacific 
States  they  were  $3,248,476  less.  In  the  Territories  they  were  $351,934  less,  a  grand 
total  of  $45,471,728  less  than  in  1896. 

Only  in  the  Eastern  States  where  the  “hated  aggregation  of  wealth,”  as  the 
Democrats  term  it,  is  supposed  to  exist,  were  there  more  failures  this  year  than 
in  1896. 


0£MOCMr/c  > 
Eapaa/S/OAT. 

|  '$03. 

W’fiouf  tenant  of 

SSS.m.080 


.  /a*a. 


ORIGINAL 

Thirteen 

States. 

(Ana  521. 652, 000  acnsJ 


* C CM 77 C  fxPA NS/ OH. 

/635-/84S. 

(Ana  £43.333, 840 acne. 


.  ir.rAcv,  Content 

,  \  foremen 
\  ''A"*  £31474444 


7a»c'«fc 

ttrtbe*'  ~  X 

44.(33.000 *crti 


%  EXPANSION  MAP  UNITED  STATES. 


m.rhtmt  report  to  Xontent  of jort^e4 


